Vin's column about Billy Tauzin and the "Panhandle voters" (TLE #101)
is instructive in several ways, as usual.

The most intriguing issue is that there were allegedly THOUSANDS of
voters in the Florida Panhandle who, as soon as they heard the 'early
call' on the Florida result, turned around in their cars and went
home, rather than 'waste" the vote...

This implies three things in the minds of those voters: (1) that the
only reason to vote is to affect the outcome, (2) that polling data
and network projections can NEVER be wrong, and (3) that each voter's
individual vote would have made the difference in the election
otherwise.

The first thought would automatically invalidate the voting actions
of EVERY Libertarian, Green, NatLaw, Reform or other alternate party
supporter. It would also render absurd the vote of ANY voter in a
state where the outcome is either:

(a) a foregone conclusion (which covers all but a handful of states)
or

(b) unaffected by the vote totals in that particular state (which is
true of all but the largest ten - except this year when, due to a
preponderance of voter fraud, coupled with general voter apathy and
even division among "evils," even a small state like Tennessee could
have made the difference ...).

The second idea would imply that on Election Day, we should merely
consult the polls, and then stay home! Since the polls are right, the
votes won't make any difference whether or not they are actually cast
...

The third idea is a symptom of voter megalomania, since the very idea
that by voting or not voting, that ONE SINGLE VOTE will determine the
outcome one way or another.

Obviously, for those of us who see the ballot box as preferable to
the cartridge box, this is a golden opportunity to attack this avenue
of reasoning head on.

1. How does this guy, assuming he is NOT as detailed in #1, explain
away the NUMEROUS and BLATANT instances of voter fraud, legal
machination and outright LIES perpetrated by the Gore people in all
of this, actions which even have elements of his own Party asking him
to cease and desist?

2. How do you figure that the Florida Supremes did not overstep their
bounds, in redefining a clearly written statute (the deadline for
vote-certification) to mean something entirely different (a
"suggested deadline" which the Court could extend as it wished). Does
Mr. Gallagher have as much trouble with "shall" as his Dem cronies
have with "is"?

3. Why is he using the same tired arguments coming out of the Gore
legal goons (That Boies, he's sure a piece of work!) to claim that
just because Bush's boys didn't think they needed to prolong matters,
and thus didn't challenge every OTHER county's results (Why? They
were winning already! Do you normally consider a preemptive strike
against your opponent when you believe he is already defeated?), ...
they somehow cede the right to challenge when the Gore folk try to
subvert the results?

4. Why is this wonderful defender of "the will of the people"
overlooking the thousands of overseas (mostly military) ballots which
his Goron fellows have challenged and invalidated for trivial
reasons? Or the BLATANT voter fraud in Broward County, where hundreds
of voters who chose not to vote for President had their ballots
credited to Gore, based on stray marks, fingernail dents and other
fraudulent causes?

5. What is a Democratic Party "spin doctor" doing on TLE?

I reiterate that I am NOT on either "side" in this mess. I am a
Libertarian, I vote Libertarian or (usually) not at all, and I
frankly did not care on Election Day who won. Now I have become fully
convinced that if Gore manages to win this election, he will have
done so by stealing it—through the machinations of Cook County
vote fraud expert Bill Daley (whose daddy taught him well?), David
Boies and the rest of the Mob—and his administration will be as
fraudulent and illegitimate as that of his predecessor ...

Of course, that would not necessarily be a bad thing for the
long-term cause of liberty ...

<<
At the present time, it appears that George W. Bush will, eventually,
become the President of the United States. When that happens,
remember what has happened here. George Bush has whined, stalled, and
lied to the American people, in his headlong search for power and he
isn't even in office yet. What will be do once he is in office?
>>

This letter is in response to the news article endorsing the behavior
of the Florida Supreme Court. The Court based its decision on the
proposition that the right of the voter to have his vote case is
paramount. However, the Court is being disingenuous. If this
so-called right is paramount, then why does the enjoyment of this
right depend upon someone else (i.e. candidate and canvassing board)
asserting this right on behalf of the voter. In other words, if this
"right" to have one's vote hand-counted were so paramount as the
court suggests, then why can't the voters of "Republican" counties
enjoy that right?

The voters in "Republican" counties whose ballots may not have been
picked up by a machine do not enjoy the right to a handcount because
neither candidate asked for a recount in that county. Now how can
such a "paramount right" depend on someone else asserting that right
for you?

With Democrats, the Court is saying "to hell with the law and
deadlines, the people have a right to have their votes cast." But
with Republicans, they are saying, "Too bad, your votes cannot be
counted. Your candidate was too inept to ask for a recount." Is that
fair? Is that what libertarianism is about?

If the real parties in interest were indeed the voters rather than
the candidates, then the Florida Supreme Court would have orderd
manuel recounts in all 67 counties in Florida, notwithstanding Bush's
failure to request counts.

Concerning the Secretary of State's descretion, there may be a
conflict between "must reject" and "may reject," but in no way does
this mean that the Secretary of State "must NOT reject" the late
ballots. Judge Lewis' opinion was legally sounder than the Supreme
Court's.

On the subject of movies, I am not aware of any that carry an
explicit libertarian message, but there are, nevertheless, many worth
watching. Among them:

Brazil:
[
DVD or
VHS]This Pythonesque movie ridiculed the insanity and rigidity of
government bureaucracy and of the societies dominated by them in the
most amazing ways. It reached unparralled heights of absurdity in the
scene wherein the government agents required written permission of
the terrorist prior to questioning him which was then compounding
when they charged him for the 'service'. They also required his wife
to sign a document acknowledging that they now had custody of him
with her permission. A truly nightmarish, dystopian movie.

Lorenzo's Oil: Now someone might ask how a movie featuring leftist
Susan Sarandon could possibly be libertarian. Well, I¹m sure that the
libertarianism in this movie is entirely accidental. Nevertheless,
consider the plot. The story revolves around a family which is
falling apart because a child, Lorenzo, is suffering from a form of
Lupus. The parents try all the traditional medical approaches to
effect a cure and nothing works. Rather than give up, the father,
played by Nick Nolte [who is not a doctor] does his own medical
research [this is where the libertarianism or rather, self-reliance
comes in] and comes up with the cure. Hence the title: Lorenzo¹s Oil.
It is a painful picture to watch but it does have the virtue of being
a true story.

The Americanization of Emily: This movie featured James Garner, Julie
Andrews, and James Coburn. It ridiculed the notion—quite
successfully, I might add—that there is something noble about
soldiers risking and losing their lives on whatever the latest
battlefield some idiot politicians have cooked up for them. Those,
such as Rush Limbaugh, who believe that WWII was righteous because
our fathers understood that there were events 'larger than
themselves' and that we should build monuments to our war dead should
watch this movie.

As for television, during the eighties PBS and A & E, ran a British
sitcom called Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. While it is true
that this sitcom did not carry any particular libertarian message it
did make joyous, if not Swiftian fun of the institution of
government. The writing and plots were often quite clever and the use
of language was superb. One of my favorite episodes was called The
Compassionate Society in which the Minister, James Hacker, learns
that there is a publicly funded hospital which is not caring for a
single patient. He then attempts to close it down only to be thwarted
by the scheming, underhanded [who is supposed to be helping him
implement his policies] Permanent Secretary of the DAA, Sir Humphrey
Appleby. Today, as far as I know, selected episodes are available on
VHS from amazon.com as long as they last. Since we can¹t get rid of
government let us at least laugh at the stupid things.

While I never watched it, during the seventies Michael Landon's
Little House on the Prairie might qualify. If it was in any way
inspired by the Laura Ingals Wilder¹s children¹s classics, other than
borrowing the title I mean, it should certainly be considered. I¹m
sure it is in reruns.

This is just a short note to thank you all for The Libertarian
Enterprise. As far as I can see, not only are you not making any
money at it, but it's actually costing you money. But how can this
be? Without government "encouraging" us to "help" our fellow citizens
(at the point of a gun, of course), we would all descend into chaos.
Nobody would voluntarily give of their time and intellectual capacity
were it not for those caring and noble folks who comprise the
government ruling elite. (Didn't Ayn Rand say something about
checking our premises? hmmmm...)

At any rate, I am grateful that you have created and maintained this
wonderful meeting of minds. Please do not think I am accusing you of
altruism (Ayn Rand, get out of my head!). Perhaps you consider TLE a
long-term investment that will result in more freedom for you and
your families. Or perhaps you just enjoy having your opinions aired.
It doesn't matter. What does matter (to me) is that I am the
beneficiary of your intelligence, reason, wit and passion for
freedom. I thank you for that.

First, Michael W. Gallagher's 'A Few Notes on Election Protests and
Contests' is right on the mark and right on time. It's just too bad
that this article was not seen by more people.

I have no desire to see either candidate in office. I do not like or
trust either candidate. I fully believe that either candidate will
continue to botch the economic, social and political conditions in
the US and I don't want to see that happen. However, over these last
few weeks it has become increasingly clear that Bush is winning the
emotional campaign amongst the citizens of this nation to force Gore
to stop his attempts at vote recounts. Bush's attempts to do so are
completely self-serving and are NOT, as demonstrated by Mr.
Gallaghers article, in the best interest of voter rights nor does it
clear the issue of who actually won. Leaving aside the fact that over
half the registered voters chose to abstain rather than vote for
either major party candidate, those who did vote clearly wanted Vice
President Gore to win the election. And, in such a close election
between two such candidates, the "losing" candidates have frequently
resorted to the fair, legal and common practice of requiring a manual
recount in close elections. So, why is this any different? It isn't.
Let the manual recount go on.

Second, in response to Vin's excellent article, 'Sparing Us the
Emperor Al', I've got to agree with the main thrust of Vin's
comments, but I must say that my desire to see AlGore in office stems
from the fact that he's a geek and a nerd. GW is more of a jock and
good ol' boy. Well, speaking as a geek-and-nerd, I fully remember all
those times when the J/G's made my life hell. I also remember those
times when fellow G/N's screwed me over as well. But there was a
difference between the two. J/G's felt that it was their right and
privilege to screw everybody any time they felt like it, just because
they could get away with it. The G/N's only screwed someone over as a
last resort, because they knew full well the truth behind the saying,
'What goes around, comes back around.' Letting GW into the
Presidential Playhouse is akin to giving a pyro a Bic lighter and a
can of gasoline.

I guess what I'm saying is that both AlGore and GW will screw us over
for the next few years, but GW is far more likely to do it, jsut
because it feels so good!

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act
consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not
libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

At what point in the incursion by government on freedom does
defensive use of force become valid? When the government passes an
anti-freedom law (e.g. confiscation of guns, prohibition of alcohol,
cigarettes, or other drugs, ...), is that enough to enable the use of
defensive force per the above? or, to be a consistent Libertarian do
we have to wait until the BATF/DEA et al. actually starts shooting?

I was surprised to see a partisan and specious review of the Florida
Supreme Court ruling on TLE. Aside from being legally baseless, it
offered no libertarian principles as foundation or context. My repost
[see "Perverse and Malicious Dictates"—ed.] is below.

I have some techie skills, and will be acquiring (access to) an XL1
(mini-DV format camcorder) and editing console this spring, if all
goes well.

But I have nothing to make! I'm not a writer, I'm a technician. I can
make special effects (within certain limits), I can learn to be a
cameraman, I can mix sound... but I can't write a script, I can't lay
out a scene.

So here's your chance, all you closet libertarian screenwriters! This
here's a call for all your dusty material; I can't promise anything,
but we can at least all see each others' work and swap ideas, right?
Sort of a SourceForge thing; perhaps we could host it there. Anyone
else have any input?

Contact me at gdrago23 at yahoo.com (obscured so some web-bot doesn't
spam me.)

I read with interest the article in the Japan Times online edition,
Cyberia, "Ready for Takeoff", December 6th.

I'm interested that you didn't mention the singular reason why
bandwidth in/out/through the US is cheaper than going direct, why
such a huge percentage of Asian traffic still traverses the Pacific
twice to get to its destination, why it's cheaper to fly to Fukuoka
from Tokyo by taking a stop in Seoul, etc etc etc...

Government regulation.

NTT's prices are so astronomical because they are a protected
monopoly. If NTT's assets were sold off to the highest bidder and
telecommunications completely deregulated by the Japanese government,
the national infrastructure might skip a beat, but it would return
and exceed the capabilities of anywhere else in the world within 2
years. or less, because of the existing wireless systems.

Yet we're stuck with Mori's latest "5 year plan" to do nothing.

Your historical trends do not go back far enough. In 1992 and 93, the
US federal government bureaucracy attempted to force upon the US
telecommunications market a "data superhighway", much beloved by Al
Gore, he even campaigned on the issue. This "superhighway" would
consist of about 6 interconnect points around the nation, where any
and all ISP's would be forced by law to connect. All peering would be
done, by law, at those interconnects, and all long-haul data
transmission would travel, by law, between those nodes.

The perfect model of efficiency, predictability and control. And just
as perfect a complete disaster if it had come to pass.

What happened instead was a fluke: for once the bureaucracy reduced
it's grip, just a little. The National Science Foundation released
it's routing tables to the responsibility of the individual companies
who had IP networks. Whether or not your network could be reached by
anyone else came to depend not on government fiat, but on your own
efforts as an ISP to leverage the most efficient connectivity for
your customers.

The entire explosion in connectivity follows that loosening. I know,
I was there and I was working on that connectivity for a major ISP as
the National Science Foundation ESS servers were taken out of the
loop.

US national infrastructure ballooned, and prices dropped because the
industry moved too fast to be stopped by government regulation.
Customers bought the service that best suited their needs, and
companies such as CompuServe and Prodigy fell by the wayside. Imagine
the cries of agony if a major, and I mean MAJOR steel manufacturer
were to go out of business because someone undercut their prices and
"stole" their customers? But that's called "dumping", and it is
illegal.

Inefficiencies in a market require government assistance to continue,
otherwise the customers would just go to someone else where they get
the service they want.

It is the terror of the short term disruption that allows governments
to keep strangleholds on industries, like Japan has on its
telecommunications infrastructure. not Mori, not NTT, no one can
determine what will best serve the information consumer and force it
into existence. One size cannot fit all.

The only system that works is no system at all. Prosecute fraud, but
otherwise leave the people themselves to decide what the best service
means to them. Some telecommunications companies will go bankrupt,
some will merge or be bought out, and some will make extraordinary
profits. They will only be able to do this by serving the desires and
needs of their customers.

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the letter of John
Trinman, regarding my article on the election. There are a
significant number of misstatements and misunderstandings I would
like to correct.

1). Mr. Trinward asked how I "explain away" behavior by Gore et al. I
don't. My article did not concentrate on Gore.

Mr. Trinward: obviously I did not write the article YOU wanted
someone to write. That being the case, if you want an article on a
specific topic, WRITE IT YOURSELF. However, do your research and keep
your facts straight. The readers of this publication do pay
attention.

Before I wrote my article, I realized that there would be one or more
people writing about Mr. Gore and his (perpetual) election
litigation. This is understandable. Gore is such a lovely target.
Hell, anyone who spent eight years running errands for (and lying
for) Bubba Clinton would make an irresistable target. Add in Gore's
own behavior and beliefs, and it is inevitable that one or more
people would go to work on him. All I have to say about that is, good
hunting!

However, I realized that it was less likely that someone here would
also review the behavior of Mr. Bush and his thugs in detail. Just
because Gore is, well, Gore, does not mean that Georgie Bush should
get a "free ride", (at least not in my humble opinion).

2). Why do I restate the arguments used by Boies and others, that
there is no general state recount because Bush never asked for one?
Because he didn't. That was his choice.

Look, litigation in America is "self-serve". It is up to you to
assert your own rights, either personally or through your
attorney(s). Nobody's going to do it for you—least of all your
opponent. If you don't assert those rights, you may lose them.
Further, as I understand it, the Florida election code, like most
state election laws, contemplates objections being filed on a voting
district or county basis—not on a state-wide basis. The voter(s) or
candidates(s) affected in a particular county file objections in that
county, if they want to.

OF COURSE Gore only complained about some counties. Those were the
counties where he thought he had been damaged, and could make up some
votes. If Bush wanted to object to the count in a county, it is up to
HIM to file that objections. For Bush (through his attack weasel,
James Baker) to later complain that Gore only wants to count certain
counties is, at best, ingenuous. Bush knows (or should know) what the
rules are.

In reality, this is yet another attempt to lie to and confuse the
American people. Further, it is denegrating to everyone who listens
to him—because he is assuming that his audience is TOO STUPID OR TOO
LAZY TO THINK.

3). Why didn't I go into the issue of the absentee ballots? Because I
didn't. An article detailing every issue of this election would take
me at least a month to write, and would be the size of a small
telephone book. I didn't feel like writing it, you wouldn't feel like
reading it, and I am sure John Taylor would not feel like publishing
it. I was writing a (brief) article—not a textbook on elections! If
you want to see that article, I say again, write it yourself and
submit it!

4). Why do I believe that the Supreme Court of Florida did not
overstep its bounds? Because it probably didn't. It is the job of
each state Supreme Court to decide the law of that state. Where there
is a conflict—as there was between several sections of the Florida
election code—they have to figure out what to do to implement the
laws as best as possible.

This sort of thing happens all the time. Legislators are often
sloppy, and do not properly reconcile parts of one statute with
another statute when they pass these things. In this case you have
three statutes, all in conflict. How then, do you make the laws work
together? You reconcile them as best you can, using whatever you can
for guidance—the state Constitution, the legislative histories of
the laws, (what the legislators said, when they debated these laws
originally), and basic "rules of construction". From their opinion,
it appears that the Florida Supreme Court attempted to do that. I
think that is what you will see when the Florida court issues its
(more detailed) opinion, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's
remand order.

Look—there is nothing that says that Georgie Porgie, er , I mean,
George W. Bush, cannot appeal a ruling he doesn't agree with. There
is nothing wrong in claiming "The Court below erred". But it is the
height of arrogance, (not to mention childish whining) to publicly
state that it is a political fix, when you lose in court. It also
demeans the people he addresses, since Mr. Baker (presuming he is not
a buffoon) knows that what he is saying is trash. He knows he is
lying.

This behavior also shows that he is familiar with—and believes
in—the techniques of Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels, also
known as the "big lie", i.e., tell a large enough lie often enough,
and people will be stunned into believing it.

Much as I admire the writing of Vin Suprynowicz, and often agree with
him, I have to disagree with his latest article, at least in part. I
do agree that Al Gore is a crazed power-junky. I do agree that such
people are very dangerous. However, there isn't any real evidence
that George Bush is not just as bad, (other than one or two
self-serving statements). And, even if he isn't as power-mad as Gore,
the people he as surrounded himself with ARE. There is a sort of
"burn the place to the ground so that I can at least rule the ashes"
kind of logic to the statements of Baker, et al. Do whatever damage
you want to do, as long as you win in the end.

In summary, I find no relief whatsoever in Bush's election. He scares
me just as much as the other twit—and more, in some ways. What kind
of Supreme Court justices might Bush, et al, appoint? What freedoms
are they going to revoke, "in the public good?"